In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Changing The Constitution

n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

Sage 1

Comments

  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    If it were done, as required, then we would have no choice.

    Changing the Constitution however, doesn't change what are God given (or natural) rights.
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention. This has not been done since 1786, and in my opinion should not be done anytime in the foreseeable future. The Constitution has obviously been amended many times and I think this process is acceptable though overly used.

    That being said I would never accept any law that says I cannot posses a firearm for defense of myself, my family, and my property.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1
    This would require a new Amendment. Barring that, 'government' has no authority to 'revise' the Constitution.

    If they pass legislation attempting to circumvent Amendment II, then that 'law' would not be valid and I would not recognize it as such.

    I expect that you pud-spanking, 'bend over and spread your cheeks' types, would be perfectly supportive of it though, huh?

    el-tee 496
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1



    Would you?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,127 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is either a set up question, or an ignorant one.

    If it is a set up question:

    The 'Government' has already revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, and most of us chest beaters have followed the laws, though we have not accepted them.

    For example, I have bought weapons through FFL's and filled out the paperwork. I have not purchased a full auto because my state does not allow them. I have a concealed carry permit, and do not carry in states that have no reciprocity agreement with my state.

    My rationalization is that I am more valuable free than imprisoned. It is superficially hypocritical, but is in fact more a tolerance of the laws as compared to the acceptance of them.

    If it is an ignorant question:

    The 'Government' cannot revise the Constitution. The amendment process is detailed and specific. Any revision has to go through that process, which includes, if memory serves, the acceptance of the Amendment by 3/4 of the states.

    If the 2nd were neutered through the Amendment process, it would be a problem. I believe in the natural right of every human being to live free, and believe that this natural right trumps the machinations of government. The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 37,965 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1



    Would you?
    Inquiring minds want to know.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:That being said I would never accept any law that says I cannot posses a firearm for defense of myself, my family, and my property.
    I would add..defense against tyranny as the FIRST reason.

    Sorry, Sage, that you hollow chested socialist/fascists find the Constitution so restrictive and odious.

    Funny..I find YOU people to be that.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1



    Would you?
    By the way, good to see you back Shane. Everything ok?
  • Deadred707Deadred707 Member Posts: 168 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    To late I already dont have any constitutional gun rights I live in Kali. [:(!]
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1



    Would you?
    By the way, good to see you back Shane. Everything ok?



    Everything is fine. I was on R&R with the family last week on the SC coastline. It's good to be back home.[;)][:D]
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.


    Indeed.[;)][:D]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,127 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.


    Indeed.[;)][:D]

    It is all good, Shane.

    The wife tells me I look good in vertical stripes.[:)]
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.


    Indeed.[;)][:D]

    It is all good, Shane.

    The wife tells me I look good in vertical stripes.[:)]
    Ah, but Don, will your 'new' wife, 'Bubba-Joe', think that you do?[:)]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,127 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    It is all good, Shane.

    The wife tells me I look good in vertical stripes.[:)]
    Ah, but Don, will your 'new' wife, 'Bubba-Joe', think that you do?[:)]

    I just can't paint that picture, Jeff. But thanks for framing it.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • zinkzink Member Posts: 6,456 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well, the way I see it is, if they do this I too will be a criminal.
    Thay won't have to worry about the striped suit for me...





    it won't be needed.

    Lance
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:I would add..defense against tyranny as the FIRST reason

    Highball, good point, but being an individualist I consider most anything the fed govt does to be an offense that should be defended against. In fact I cant remember anything in my short existence on this rock that the fed govt has done that is not tyrannical or uncontitutional.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    No need to change the constitution, The government is doing just fine with limiting ownership and possession, no need for them to go through the hoops of amendment when they can get what they want without a change.
  • osburnjbosburnjb Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    First post, fingers crossed.

    I would have to say that it is not unconstitutional to amend the constitution to make guns illegal. BUT, the way to go about this process is so impressively impossible that it would never, never, never happen. I mean, we saw this with prohibition and how well did that work? The entire belief of this country is based around the fact that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to defend our freedoms and change the government when they blatantly infringe upon our rights.
  • ringchildringchild Member Posts: 31 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1


    nope.
    it would be similar to changing the constitution to limit breathing.
    my right to defend myself and my family comes from a higher authority.
  • wittynbearwittynbear Member Posts: 4,518
    edited November -1
    Nope, I would not accept it as valid. The 2nd amendment protects my GOD given right from government infringement. The government violates the constitution every day and the supreme court owes the people an apology followed by their resignations. If the government modified any of the 1st 10 amendments I would not recognize it or the government as being valid from that point forward.
  • miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1
    The ones who would try such an endeavor would be removed from Office.
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    This is either a set up question, or an ignorant one.

    If it is a set up question:

    The 'Government' has already revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, and most of us chest beaters have followed the laws, though we have not accepted them.

    For example, I have bought weapons through FFL's and filled out the paperwork. I have not purchased a full auto because my state does not allow them. I have a concealed carry permit, and do not carry in states that have no reciprocity agreement with my state.

    My rationalization is that I am more valuable free than imprisoned. It is superficially hypocritical, but is in fact more a tolerance of the laws as compared to the acceptance of them.

    If it is an ignorant question:

    The 'Government' cannot revise the Constitution. The amendment process is detailed and specific. Any revision has to go through that process, which includes, if memory serves, the acceptance of the Amendment by 3/4 of the states.

    If the 2nd were neutered through the Amendment process, it would be a problem. I believe in the natural right of every human being to live free, and believe that this natural right trumps the machinations of government. The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.
    Good points. I too have adhered to the various unconstitutional laws abridging our liberty, but it is because I do not feel that the time is right (yet) to lose everything, including my life, in defense of those liberties.

    BTW, below is an excerpt from a website called "US Constitution Online:"

    quote:There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

    The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

    The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

    Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the "Ratification Convention Page" for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

    The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

    * Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
    * Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
    * Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
    * Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

    It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])
    Regardless, none of the above will be used to remove/adjust the 2nd Amendment, it will simply be ruled null and void by the Supreme Court. Perhaps then will be the time to take a stand.
  • mikemassmikemass Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rocklobster "Regardless, none of the above will be used to remove/adjust the 2nd Amendment, it will simply be ruled null and void by the Supreme Court. Perhaps then will be the time to take a stand."

    What exactly do you mean by "take a stand" UNfortunately... if something has the type of support required to Amend the constitution, and/or VOID the 2nd. Regular Citizens aren't going to have much of a choice other than to comply or become criminals. I have a limited understanding of how Politics work so I could be completely wrong about this... But the popular vote does not seem to make a lick of difference to Politicians outside of Campaigning. I know that I would put my name on a petition to preserve my God Given, INalienable rights... but aside from that... I don't see going to war with the US Gov't as a viable option. So back to the root... What exactly would you propose as a method of combating these new revisions should something like this occur?
  • 1776-19761776-1976 Member Posts: 284 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    When you change the Constitution or Bill of Rights you change our country from what it was created to be to what our elected and unelected officials decide they want it to be. When our leaders no longer serve the people and uphold the Constitution we have a tyranny and NOT the Constitutional Republic our Founders designed our country to be. The Declaration of Independance was very clear on what our DUTY is when our leaders no longer serve the people.
  • HoldigrHoldigr Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Perhaps I am wrong, but seems to me, after much reading and thought, that the act of changing the Bill of Rights by any means, would render the constitution null and void. The first ten amendments were added as absolute conditions to the ratification of the constitution. These are God given rights (with the possible exception of the 10th) guaranteed by the constitution rather than granted by it. Should anyone manage to amend the 2nd or any of the first ten, there would be no reason to obey any of government's laws as government would no longer have a right to exist.
  • Rusty ShacklefordRusty Shackleford Member Posts: 80 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1


    Sage?? 1,
    I don't get by here too often, so I don't know your history. However, the tone of your question, and the choice of your words lead me to conclude you have a genuine disdain for those of us who believe whole-heartedly in the Constitution and that through it, we have the greatest country/society in the history of mankind. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution was coined not only to convey to us things we CAN do, but to to articulate that which the "government" CAN'T. But to address your "question", a term I use loosely in context, were that to happen, to borrow a phrase from history, "a little revolution now and then is a good thing."
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
    I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention.

    Don't start on the fallacy that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution. It can't.

    As you know, there are two ways listed in the Constitution, to change that document. One is the "normal" amendment process, which has been used many times. Both houses of Congress must approve a proposed amendment by a 2/3 supermajority in each house; then the proposal goes to the states, where it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

    The other way is very similar. A Constitutional Convention takes the place of the Congress. But anything the ConCon passes, still must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it is null and void.

    When states are ratifying a proposed amendment, a state can ratify it by favorable vote of its legislature OR the state can convene a small ConCon of its own, to provide its ratification vote.

    But there is no way a Constitutional Convention can modify the Constitution by itself.
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Little-Acorn
    quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
    I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention.

    Don't start on the fallacy that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution. It can't.

    As you know, there are two ways listed in the Constitution, to change that document. One is the "normal" amendment process, which has been used many times. Both houses of Congress must approve a proposed amendment by a 2/3 supermajority in each house; then the proposal goes to the states, where it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

    The other way is very similar. A Constitutional Convention takes the place of the Congress. But anything the ConCon passes, still must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it is null and void.

    When states are ratifying a proposed amendment, a state can ratify it by favorable vote of its legislature OR the state can convene a small ConCon of its own, to provide its ratification vote.

    But there is no way a Constitutional Convention can modify the Constitution by itself.


    I was refering to the processes by which constitution is changed. Amendments are additions to constitution for clarification, inclusion, exclusion etc. it does not revise or change the original wording. My point was that to change the original wording and therefore revise the constitution, a constitutional convention would be required. I also stated that I may be wrong. If so please educate me.

    BTW, if a constitutional convention convenes, writes new constitution and it is ratified by states, would it not be changed?

    Guess I don't get your post.

    I think the fact that ratification is needed in both cases goes without saying. All who would start either process would understand all is for naught without state ratification. Maybe that is why no one else felt the need to bring it up previously.

    Can't help it gotta throw in a duh here.
  • IdahoRedneckIdahoRedneck Member Posts: 2,699
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
    quote:Originally posted by Little-Acorn
    quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
    I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention.

    Don't start on the fallacy that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution. It can't.

    As you know, there are two ways listed in the Constitution, to change that document. One is the "normal" amendment process, which has been used many times. Both houses of Congress must approve a proposed amendment by a 2/3 supermajority in each house; then the proposal goes to the states, where it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

    The other way is very similar. A Constitutional Convention takes the place of the Congress. But anything the ConCon passes, still must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it is null and void.

    When states are ratifying a proposed amendment, a state can ratify it by favorable vote of its legislature OR the state can convene a small ConCon of its own, to provide its ratification vote.

    But there is no way a Constitutional Convention can modify the Constitution by itself.


    I was refering to the processes by which constitution is changed. Amendments are additions to constitution for clarification, inclusion, exclusion etc. it does not revise or change the original wording. My point was that to change the original wording and therefore revise the constitution, a constitutional convention would be required. I also stated that I may be wrong. If so please educate me.

    BTW, if a constitutional convention convenes, writes new constitution and it is ratified by states, would it not be changed?

    Guess I don't get your post.

    I think the fact that ratification is needed in both cases goes without saying. All who would start either process would understand all is for naught without state ratification. Maybe that is why no one else felt the need to bring it up previously.

    Can't help it gotta throw in a duh here.


    [:D]
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
    I was refering to the processes by which constitution is changed. You were referring to part of that process.

    quote:Amendments are additions to constitution for clarification, inclusion, exclusion etc. it does not revise or change the original wording. If you want to concentrate on the (irrelevant) distinction that amendments can declare parts of the Constitution null and void, while leaving those parts in the document, you are correct. (Can we have a "Duh!" here?)

    quote:My point was that to change the original wording and therefore revise the constitution, a constitutional convention would be required. I also stated that I may be wrong. If so please educate me. I just did.

    quote:Guess I don't get your post. I guess you don't.

    quote:I think the fact that ratification is needed in both cases goes without saying. No, it does not go without saying. A surprising number of people think that a ConCon can change the Constitution on its own, unilaterally, with no state input or other check/balance required. I can't begin to count the number of times I've had to point out that a ConCon is just a minor part of the required process, and that the states can toss out anything they do without lifting a finger, by simply refusing to ratify.

    Your post encouraged the (surprisingly common) view that ConCons are all-powerful. So I posted my correction.
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Actually, I believe that even a Constitutional Convention cannot "revise the Constitution" as you described. That is, they cannot publish a new one where Article XX, Section YY is no longer there, and several new paragraphs are inserted at a new point. Not even if they have to send it to the states for ratification.

    All A ConCon can do, is propose amendments just as Congress can with a supermajority of each house. The ConCon's role is IDENTICAL to Congress's in all ways.

    So in actuality, the "amendment solution" is the ONLY way the Constitution can be modified. There are simply two ways those amendments can be proposed: By Congress, or by a ConCon. And during ratification, a state can ratify (or refuse to ratify) either by a vote of its legislature, or by a little ConCon representing only that state.
  • dsmc1dsmc1 Member Posts: 112 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    All very well and good, but lets not forget that the 21st amendment REPEALED the 18th (prohibition)using the process that has been outlined here by several posters.

    There could easily be an amendment proposed that would repeal the 2nd Amendment. And I would NOT be a bit surprised to find that there are people in the Democratic controled Federal Government, who are trying to lay the groundwork to do just that.

    However I don't think it would have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing in today's political climate. A poll was reported on one of these forums, I believe that is where I saw it, that was conducted by a national news network and 97% of those polled believed that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to bear Arms. And that was conducted BEFORE the SJC ruled on Heller.

    Even in the liberal state of Massachusetts, I can't believe legislators would DARE to vote for such a repeal.
  • Explorer1Explorer1 Member Posts: 45 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Sage1
    If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?

    Sage 1


    As a Vet, I took an oath to protect the Constitution. The Constitution acknowledges GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. If there is an attempt to limit my ability to defend my loved ones, well....I have risked my life before.
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmc1
    There could easily be an amendment proposed that would repeal the 2nd Amendment.That has always been true, and is just as true today.

    Keep in mind, though, that if the 2nd amendment were repealed, the Fed govt STILL would have no constitutional authority to regulate firearms per se. They could restrict or prevent them from being transferred across state lines, but that's about it.

    Remember that the Constitution created the Fed Govt as we have it today (well, not in the form it is today, but that's a matter for a different thread)... and GAVE IT ALL ITS POWERS. And one power not given anywhere in the Constitution (even if the 2nd' weren't there), is the power to regulate firearms. The principal of Enumerated Powers hasn't changed since 1789. It's merely been ignored or violated, but never repealed. (Banks get robbed fairly frequently, but does that mean that the laws against robbing banks no longer exist?)

    quote:However I don't think it would have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing in today's political climate.

    That's another thing that's been true for a very long time. As I keep saying, America is a fundamentally conservative country - one where the populace believes that individuals are sovereign and should be responsible for their own lives. There has NEVER been a time since 1789 when a majority (and certainly not the 3/4 majority required to modify the Constitution) believes we would be better off with the 2nd amendment gone.

    That's why politicians have never bothered to pass a proposed Constitutional amendment in Congress, repealing or modifying the 2nd amendment. They know the people would be HEAVILY against it, and would vote their tushes right out of Congress at the next election.
  • blackmesariflecoblackmesarifleco Member Posts: 91 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    [/quote]The ones who would try such an endeavor would be removed from Office.

    [/quote]

    There alot of them trying that are still there term after term.
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Now would be a time of fortuitous luck if the band wagon of anti-gun owners would in fact try to nullify the 2nd. Amendment.

    I would like to believe it would cause many to wake up from their complacent sleep and start the tidal wave of cultural realignment, just short of a new "Tea Party" so often called for today.

    Call me an optimist.[8D]
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mikemass
    Rocklobster "Regardless, none of the above will be used to remove/adjust the 2nd Amendment, it will simply be ruled null and void by the Supreme Court. Perhaps then will be the time to take a stand."

    What exactly do you mean by "take a stand" UNfortunately... if something has the type of support required to Amend the constitution, and/or VOID the 2nd. Regular Citizens aren't going to have much of a choice other than to comply or become criminals. I have a limited understanding of how Politics work so I could be completely wrong about this... But the popular vote does not seem to make a lick of difference to Politicians outside of Campaigning. I know that I would put my name on a petition to preserve my God Given, INalienable rights... but aside from that... I don't see going to war with the US Gov't as a viable option. So back to the root... What exactly would you propose as a method of combating these new revisions should something like this occur?
    I'm certain Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, et.al., were asked what they meant by "take a stand," and they were faced with the choice between compliance with King George's wishes or becoming "criminals." No doubt many people did not see going to war with Great Britain as a viable option.

    New Hampshire's state motto comes to mind immediately: "Live Free or Die." It will be a difficult choice for many. During Jefferson's time, only a small percentage of the population chose freedom, while the rest bowed down to their master.
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rocklobster you are right on point. Many of those in the service of King George (a.k.a. Redcoats) were actually friends and neighbors of those who were termed "patriots" by us and "criminals" by the Crown.

    Many stand by and let things happen, few make things happen. Especially now, in a culture of "entitlement" as we have, many will again just stand there watching while others give their blood to quench the thirst of the tree of freedom.

    USN (Ret.)

    "The democracy will fail when you take from those who work and give to those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson
Sign In or Register to comment.